Model 3 dual motor AWD optional

[RobStark]

Household income difference in the USA between 3 Series buyers and Model S is only about $20k.

The marginal difference is not that great.

Many people buy 3 Series over 5 and 7 BECAUSE it is smaller and fits their parking space better or is easier to maneuver in densely populated cities/metro areas including suburbs close to major cities. More so even in Europe.

In Northern Europe today the majority of luxury sedans are sold with AWD, not sure about the D segment though.

AWD gets better traction which is safer whether in good weather or bad. Two gear ratios is more efficient than one. And so far multiple speed transmissions in BEVs have proven unreliable. But I suppose in the future 2 gears up front and 2 in the rear will be more efficient to a 2 speed RWD.


A 2015 Honda Accord V6 has 278 horsepower and it does not eat new tires for every breakfast.

A 350 HP AWD Model 3 will not be chewing up more tire than the above Accord because it will spread wear more evenly.

 

[brianman]

The fact that almost all Model S sold are 85 and have plenty of options shows that the typical Model S buyer is all about features and technology. They don't worry about cost much.

I get really tired of hearing phrasing like this.

"You bought __. That implies that you don't care how much __ cost."

Wrong for just about everyone I've ever spoken to personally for more than 7 words -- Tesla-related or otherwise -- for my entire life.

 

[igotzzoom]

I know a lot of people that bought the Model S did so at a significant financial sacrifice, and I have a lot of respect for those that did. But I simply have a comfort level in terms of how much I want to spend on a car. I wish I were at a place in my life where the difference between $50,000 and $100,000 is academic, but I'm not. I guess just reading the threads and posts where prices of $65-70k are discussed for the Model 3 is discouraging. And I want to be clear I'm the LAST person that grinds the axe of class warfare. I just hope there will be trims of the Model 3 that are accessible to the average buyer.

 

[gregincal]

I get really tired of hearing phrasing like this.

"You bought __. That implies that you don't care how much __ cost."

Wrong for just about everyone I've ever spoken to personally for more than 7 words -- Tesla-related or otherwise -- for my entire life.

I agree. I sweated over every option I ordered, and looking at the amount of angst in the ordering threads of this forum I think that's pretty normal. I actually don't expect the Model 3 ordering to be much different.

 

[dsm363]

I know a lot of people that bought the Model S did so at a significant financial sacrifice, and I have a lot of respect for those that did. But I simply have a comfort level in terms of how much I want to spend on a car. I wish I were at a place in my life where the difference between $50,000 and $100,000 is academic, but I'm not. I guess just reading the threads and posts where prices of $65-70k are discussed for the Model 3 is discouraging. And I want to be clear I'm the LAST person that grinds the axe of class warfare. I just hope there will be trims of the Model 3 that are accessible to the average buyer.

It's sounds like there will be. My hope is $50,000 will buy a well equipped Model 3.

 

[brucet999]

At first blush it would seem like an AWD model would be significantly more expensive, but when you look at it more closely this may not be the case.

So first we must realize that the motors, gears, and power electronics will be more expensive for an AWD set up. In general the price of an electric motor scales as the square root of the motors horsepower. So assuming that Tesla is shooting for 250hp we can find he difference in price for the motors.

Assuming two 125hp motors vs. one 250 hp motorPrice ratio = 2*sqrt(125)/sqrt(250)=1.41

So assuming that the 250hp motor cost approx $2k, I have no idea if this is in the right ballpark, the two 125k motors would cost $2828. So we have $828 we need to make up.


Summary

The higher efficiency of the AWD configuration could make it less expensive or negligibly more expensive to sell a something like a 46.5kWh Model 3D rather than a 50kWh Model 3.

It's worthy of note that you have calculated only motor costs, but have not considered extra expense and weight of the other front drivetrain components - shafts, CV joints, etc. as well as cost of electronics to manage the motors. Considering that 70D is priced only $5k less than 85 RWD, despite the fact that its most expensive component, the battery, is 17.6% smaller, the additional cost of AWD is likely much more than you estimate.

- - - Updated - - -

Europe really is a different place than the US when it comes to cars. Here AWD is rare and not really seen as essential. AWD is considered something that people who live in mountains need and the rest of us are better off without it.

That said there is very little penalty for Tesla if they go AWD only.

If they target the 3-series they will need to take on the 316 and the 318 (the most popular models) with about 110 hp+. So not really in M territory at all.

Of course since HP is easy and cheap with an EV they might as well go for 250 hp which puts them in line with the absolute top 335i. The real problem with that is that the cars are all but impossible to insure in Europe.

Cars with much more than 120 hp are considered muscle cars and pay extreme premiums on insurance. Especially if the driver is young.

Are the taxes on new cars based on displacement or horsepower? I noticed a lot of eurocars' displacement seem to be clustered around certain values, suggesting to me that they are coming just under some tax threshold.

 

[pr0teu5]

Dual motor in an EV is not automatically more efficient. The only reason the Model S with dual motor is more efficient is because they are using the old, power optimized, large rear motor and then a newer, smaller and more efficient front motor. By switching off the rear motor they can make the Model S go a little more efficient. But that also means if it had only the newer, more efficient front motor it would be even more efficient, lighter and cheaper to make. So dual motor is not better from an efficiency and cost point of view. It is worse. The Model 3 is primarily about cutting the cost down. It is also a space issue. The dual motor Model S lost most of its frunk space to the extra motor. I use the frunk a lot so I'm glad I have a rear motor only.

I don't this is the correct reason for increased efficiency in Tesla's AWD systems.

A normal electric motor has Power and efficiency curves that look basically like what's shown below.

So we see that the motor operates very inefficiently at low percentages of it's rated power, but works more efficiently at higher power, though it is still drawing more energy in absolute terms at higher power.

So let's imagine that we had two systems one 250hp motor, and one with two 125 hp motors, and that we need 25 percent of our rated horsepower. If we only have one motor we would operate at ~75% effeciency while in the two motor system we could just have one motor operating at 50% of the rated horsepower and operate at ~85% efficiency. Of course gearing and other factors come into play, but the general concept is that by operating along two curves rather than one we can better optimize our efficiency.

 

[Model 3]

Are the taxes on new cars based on displacement or horsepower?

I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but here in Norway the tax is made up by:
- Horsepower
- Weight
- Price (VAT)
- CO2 emissions
- NOX emissions

BUT: "For vehicles in group A which is not covered by the obligation to document fuel consumption or CO2 emissions, the tax is calculated on the basis of displacement as an alternative to CO2 emissions." From wikipedia. There is also vehicle groups where CO2/Nox part is replaced by displacement - like motorcycles.

The current trend is to lower the HP/Weight part, and raise the CO2/NOX part.

... and on use the fuels (gasoline, diesel and electricity) are heavily taxed, so you will be taxed based on fuel consumption.

 

[pr0teu5]

It's worthy of note that you have calculated only motor costs, but have not considered extra expense and weight of the other front drivetrain components - shafts, CV joints, etc. as well as cost of electronics to manage the motors. Considering that 70D is priced only $5k less than 85 RWD, despite the fact that its most expensive component, the battery, is 17.6% smaller, the additional cost of AWD is likely much more than you estimate.
- - - Updated - - -

This was mentioned in another post that I made in the thread, but in principle these numbers would also scale as some function of what they would in the single motor case. So in principle if you knew the principle if you knew what that scaling factor was and what the price of the that whole system is you could simple use that factor to scale the price.

The important part of the argument isn't the actual price. Rather it's the observation that by having a more efficient AWD system you can offset a significant portion of the AWD system cost by using a smaller battery.

In addition your example of the pricing of the 70D vs the 85 actually works better as evidence toward my point rather than against it. They both have similar ranges and performance characteristics and their ranges are not all that dissimilar.

The price different is $5000 as you say, but how unexpected is that. The difference is battery size between the 70D and the 85 is 15kWh. To get a rough estimate we can look at the powerwall. The 10kWh cost ~$3500. So given that 15 is 1.5x10 the additional price of the 85 over the 70D if we only consider the battery should be 1.5x$3500 = $5250. This is almost exactly the price difference between the models.

Once you perform the rough estimates you see that Tesla could have produced something like a S77D with 8kWh less than the S85 with exactly the same range for something like $2k to $3k less that the S85

 

[Cebe]

It's worthy of note that you have calculated only motor costs, but have not considered extra expense and weight of the other front drivetrain components - shafts, CV joints, etc. as well as cost of electronics to manage the motors. Considering that 70D is priced only $5k less than 85 RWD, despite the fact that its most expensive component, the battery, is 17.6% smaller, the additional cost of AWD is likely much more than you estimate.

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't they state that 70D has a higher margin?

 

[gregincal]

I know a lot of people that bought the Model S did so at a significant financial sacrifice, and I have a lot of respect for those that did. But I simply have a comfort level in terms of how much I want to spend on a car. I wish I were at a place in my life where the difference between $50,000 and $100,000 is academic, but I'm not. I guess just reading the threads and posts where prices of $65-70k are discussed for the Model 3 is discouraging. And I want to be clear I'm the LAST person that grinds the axe of class warfare. I just hope there will be trims of the Model 3 that are accessible to the average buyer.

I'm not so sure about the average buyer, but I believe you'll be able to get a nice Model 3 for 45K. Who knows what the top end will be, and that's what the people talking about 65-70K are referring to. But it sounds like you don't want all the bells and whistles, so it shouldn't bother you. The Model 3 should start at about half the Model S price (35K versus 75K), but a fully loaded P85D is 130K (all before any tax incentives).

 

[igotzzoom]

I'm not so sure about the average buyer, but I believe you'll be able to get a nice Model 3 for 45K. Who knows what the top end will be, and that's what the people talking about 65-70K are referring to. But it sounds like you don't want all the bells and whistles, so it shouldn't bother you. The Model 3 should start at about half the Model S price (35K versus 75K), but a fully loaded P85D is 130K (all before any tax incentives).

My needs are simple: 200+ mi real-world range (that means driving 75-80 on the freeway), the usual expected tech goodies (Bluetooth phone/streaming, nav, SXM, etc.) at least 250 hp, and 0-60 in 7 seconds or less. If I could get that for $40-45k, I'd be happy.

 

[Kevin Harney]

My needs are simple: 200+ mi real-world range (that means driving 75-80 on the freeway), the usual expected tech goodies (Bluetooth phone/streaming, nav, SXM, etc.) at least 250 hp, and 0-60 in 7 seconds or less. If I could get that for $40-45k, I'd be happy.

I think you'll be happy then :biggrin:

 

[Candleflame]

My needs are simple: 200+ mi real-world range (that means driving 75-80 on the freeway), the usual expected tech goodies (Bluetooth phone/streaming, nav, SXM, etc.) at least 250 hp, and 0-60 in 7 seconds or less. If I could get that for $40-45k, I'd be happy.

200 miles of range at 80mph is the bare minimum imho.

 

[brucet999]

This was mentioned in another post that I made in the thread, but in principle these numbers would also scale as some function of what they would in the single motor case. So in principle if you knew the principle if you knew what that scaling factor was and what the price of the that whole system is you could simple use that factor to scale the price.

My point was that the front motors have parts that are not in rear motors at all, CV joints and other parts that allow steered wheels to be powered. So no, they cannot be scaled from single motor versions.

 

[pr0teu5]

My point was that the front motors have parts that are not in rear motors at all, CV joints and other parts that allow steered wheels to be powered. So no, they cannot be scaled from single motor versions.

I think you may be misunderstanding my point slightly. I'm saying that the price of all of the components that are necessary to drive power to the front wheels, insofar as those components are also present in the rear drive train will scale as some function of the price of all of those same components in a similarly sized rear wheel configuration.

The only way I can see your argument in a sensible way is if you are contending that in order to specifically drive the front wheels, which are steering, extra components are required beyond what would be required in an identical configuration where those wheels are not being steered. This will, to be sure, increase the price. However, it this doesn't mean that the price of the AWD system would no longer scale with the price of the RWD system it would just change the function by which it scales. I think that you may have gotten confused by my use of the word factor and thought that I was arguing that the price of the AWD system would scale linearly with the price of the RWD. This is obviously not the case in the original post I point out that price of an electric motor tends to scale as a function of Sqrt(horsepower).

So all i'm really saying is that by adding in the cost of the other front drive train components you are changing the scaling formula from something like;

Price AWD = 2*Sqrt(.5*System HP)/Sqrt(System HP) to some other function that we don't know.

It would also be worth asking if you still have any outstanding issues with the efficiency increased of dual motor, or the relative size of the cost of the battery in proportion to the other AWD costs.

 

[Red Sage]

OK. Let's use the opposite end of the telescope for a moment, eh?

Think of the expense in time, money, and engineering effort, to design and build two completely different front ends for a single car. One that does nothing but steer... Another that both steers and applies power to the road.

Now consider having to stock both sets of components at every Service Center 'just in case' they are needed for repairs. Now go a bit further, noting you must also keep them on hand for different configurations such as sedan, crossover, wagon, convertible, coupe... All, cars that have different weight distribution profiles.

A lot of that complexity is eliminated if you simply decide upon dual motor all wheel drive system from the outset.

As for the expense of having multiple redundant systems...

When you begin building a championship level American Football team, you start with Defense. That is simply the way it is done. Period.

When you decide to build a car, your budget is directly proportional to your intended sales volume. The more you intend to make, the lower your costs. This is known as 'economy of scale', and it both guides and governs the decision making process. Period.

Tesla Motors literally manufactures their own motors, on site, at Fremont. They can make them any way they want. They don't have to wait on a third party supplier to get around to making a motor to their specifications.

The most expensive component of the motors themselves is copper wire. That's it. Due to economy of scale, the more motors they build, the less they cost. And the less copper that goes into each individual motor, the lower their cost. Thus, if the same motor can have an output ranging from 180 HP to 250 HP, using a minimum of copper, then you can put two of them in one car. Since you've already decided the cars will all be dual motor AWD, you simply calculate the expense of other included parts to form the value of the whole.

 

[DuncanWatson]

Given the trend I see Tesla only offering AWD on all of its models in the future. It simplifies things for Tesla.

 

[dgpcolorado]

My needs are simple: 200+ mi real-world range (that means driving 75-80 on the freeway), the usual expected tech goodies (Bluetooth phone/streaming, nav, SXM, etc.) at least 250 hp, and 0-60 in 7 seconds or less. If I could get that for $40-45k, I'd be happy.

My needs are even more simple:

• 200+ miles of range (so that Supercharging is relatively time-efficient because most of it is in the bottom half of the SOC level).
• Supercharger capable.
• Decent snow performance, although AWD would be preferred so that I can get up my long, steep, curved driveway in winter without chains.
• An "affordable" price. This is the big one: $50k for a car? Not a chance.

I'm certainly aware that the range in cold or snowy weather would be considerably less than the rated range but I don't tend to make long trips in adverse weather conditions.

I have no interest in tech goodies or 0-60 type performance. None, zero, zip. I would guess that in the "mass market" such views are not uncommon.

 

[Tyl]

Model 3?

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting renderings!!!!

- - - Updated - - -